On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tim Cuthbertson <t...@gfxmonk.net> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Les Kitchen <l...@csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>> ...
>> 2. Even though Patentology is correct in pointing that the GPL
>>   (and copyleft) technically relies on copyright law, he omits
>>   to mention that that's only a defence against a system that's
>>   largely biassed against free flow of ideas and methods and
>>   code.
> Plus, patents != copyright, just because they share the IP umbrella.
> For the most part it should be pretty trivial for an individual to not
> violate copyright when writing software, but it can be impossible to
> even know if you are violating a patent.
The interesting part with software and its protection by copyright
that I see: software=speech.
Thus, at least in my mind, if  one:
a. pulls a software patent
b. implement it
c. distribute the implementation *in source code only* (as any
"artistic creation")
then this way of distributing should be protected by the "right to
freedom of expression".

Now, the mileage may vary from legislation to legislation.
I know that Aus. laws doesn't have an *explicit* protection for the
right to free speech, but by the US system of laws (I don't know which
of their constitution amendments) the protection of free speech should
trump the existence of the patent (I remember that mid-90-ies have
seen some squabbles over the export of crypto software - not patented
but classified as ammunition - that were solved by printing the source
code in books/T-shirts, etc and exporting them as such until their
gubt. gave up).

Personally, I'm highly tempted to give the above a try. Any opinions
about other risks, please?


Free-software-melb mailing list

Reply via email to